Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Tornado researchers say amateurs — inspired by movies like Twister and shows like Storm Chasers — are getting in their way, hampering science and creating hazards. 'Hundreds of camera-toting amateurs in cars ended up chasing the same storms as a fleet of scientific vehicles during the high-profile research project, called Vortex2, which wrapped up data collection this week. At times the line of traffic caused the Midwestern roads to look like the freeways of Los Angeles, said Roger Wakimoto, director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, during a briefing for reporters this week. "I worry about this as a safety hazard," Mr. Wakimoto said. "These people were blocking our escape routes because of the sheer number of cars."' Storm chasers say they have as much right to watch storms as Ph.D.s."

Even if it does get them killed, every last one of the bunch stuck in traffic went there knowing they could get blocked in by other people. Who says the PhD types couldn't contribute to some amateurs getting killed? There's a storm that can put a toothpick through an oak tree: everyone running towards it is responsible for their own consequences.

I have a tendency to agree. The "PhDs", including some participants in Vortex 2, are mostly people who have their either extreme video or tornado tourism businesses.

Sorry, folks, the roads belong to everyone, but ultimately the Highway Patrol "owns" the road, and yes, in places they are cracking down on crazed drivers, parking in the road, piles of gadgets obscuring the windows, etc.

Ultimately, I'd be more worried about some fly-by-night outfit rolling a van or driving head-on into someone either because the vehicles are poorly maintained or the driver is sleep-deprived.

I think you'll find that if people do something all the time over a period of years, they'll end up 'KNOWING WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE DOING' as a matter of course. It's called 'experience' and is not always related to how many books one reads.

I have nothing but respect for PhDs, but I doubt that much they learn in grad school prepares them any better for storm chasing than what an amateur can learn from doing it themselves. (And, get this, amateurs can read books too! I know, right? Who knew that you could r

The difference between 'experience' and 'training' is a syllabus. It may surprise you to learn that everything that can be considered a skill that people do now at one time had to be done by people who had nobody to learn from and 'didn't know what they were doing' simply because they were the first to do it. A human being with initiative can self-educate. As a species we should never denigrate that, as it has been the key to civilization itself.

Even if it does get them killed, every last one of the bunch stuck in traffic went there knowing they could get blocked in by other people. Who says the PhD types couldn't contribute to some amateurs getting killed? There's a storm that can put a toothpick through an oak tree: everyone running towards it is responsible for their own consequences.

Well, clearly the PHD's just need to call "dibs" on the tornados, blocking the "amateurs" from chasing.

They should call "shotgun". And if the amateurs get in the way, they can always use that shotgun.

I'm pretty certain that if your insurance company found out you were intentionally driving towards telephone pole, they would cancel your insurance. Incidentally, those poles were originally used as telegraph poles, and were probably used for telephone wire before they were used for AC power transmission.

As a chaser, emergency first responder, and media chaser... I can say that the problem is NOT the chasers but the "Chaser-chasers". The article references May 19th in Oklahoma where most commonly you could find local folks with their kids and dogs in the back of the family pickup truck taking pictures with their phones and point and shoots.
Regardless of what the masses in Oklahoma think... just because you have an iPhone app with radar does NOT classify you as a "chaser"!
On top of VORTEX2's caravan of 40+ vehicles, you have NBC/The Weather Channel following the VORTEX2 project that are not included with that count. You've also got the Discovery Channel's team of production vehicles coupled with the "Dominator" and TIV2, which both were captured passing miles worth of vehicles on a two lane highway in a no passing zone! Throw a few tour groups, emergency management, a couple media chasers in the mix... and you've got yourself a problem on the roadways. But those numbers nowhere add up to the amount of local yahoos who gathered up the family and put themselves in more harm than anything.
This situation defiantly makes me think twice of chasing in Oklahoma again.

"There was a guy down in Florida who said that the age of 53 years old, he was in good enough physical condition to withstand the wind, rain and hail of a force-3 hurricane. Now, let me explain somethin' to ya: it isn't THAT the wind is blowin', it's WHAT the wind is blowin'. If you get hit by a Volvo, it doesn't matter how many sit-ups you did that morning." - Ron White: Comedian.

I thought it was monumentally stupid when Oklahoma City TV stations sent-out people in vans to try and catch a tornado on camera. It served no real purpose since most of the time I couldn't see anything except lots of rain.

And as for the amateurs with their family cameras, I figure that people own their own bodies. That includes the right to abort it.

***On top of VORTEX2's caravan of 40+ vehicles, you have NBC/The Weather Channel following the VORTEX2 project that are not included with that count. You've also got the Discovery Channel's team of production vehicles...***

40+ vehicles? Plus additional hangers on and symbiotes with their own vehicles? And the congestion on rural roads is in no way their own damn fault?

Maybe, but look at it another way. Maybe doing things (that give you a profound experience) is as important as finding things out. Now, I bet for your average slashdotter, finding things out is one of the most profound experiences you can have, but not for everyone.

It's very easy to get on your high horse and proclaim SCIENCE!, but in the end, what is science for? It is for making living better or more interesting. Maybe for these people storm-chasing is a big part of what makes living interesting.

yea, 'people get in my way when i perform exceptionally dangerous tasks for my job that create additional unnecessary threats to my life and theirs' does sound awful whiny.

would you also believe it whiny if, for example, people started invading steel mills just for the thrill, and the steelworkers complained? or lets be a little more congruent, thrill seekers that go out during a hurricane to watch the coast guard rescue people from distressed vessels, to which the media aired stories featuring coastguards

The entire thing about "storm chasing saves lives" is complete bunk to give the PhD's moral authority over the amateur chasers who are in it for the thrill.

All I can say is, "WHOOOSH!"

The entire point of the research is to better improve tornado detection, tracking, and analysis. As well as to better predict when and where they'll pop up. In short, they absolutely DO have moral authority on the scene. That's not to say every trip raises the bar for what science can do, but just the same, the entire purpose for them to be there absolutely establishes morale authority in hopes to further improve things for EVERYONE - including these thrill seeking fuck-tards. If this were not true, there would be no need for continued research. And at this time there exists a need for LOTS of continued research. In short, the fact that a need persists, in of itself, establishes morale authority.

Anyone else who isn't contributing to the scientific body of knowledge has no right or need to be there. Even with established criminal laws, its illegal for them to be there; such that it hinders a scientist's ability to "safely" conduct research. This is called reckless endangerment [wikipedia.org]. Should the worst happen, these idiots are setting themselves up for both criminal and civil prosecution - to wit I sincerely hope the law does so to its fullest extent possible. If you bother to read the provided link, you'll find this fuck-tard behavior of people who don't need to be there are the literal definition of reckless endangerment. So in short, morally and legally they shouldn't be there so long as they are creating these types of hazards for legitimate researchers.

Let's start with links. You opened with Wikipedia; I'll see your Wikipedia and raise you Oklahoma's Legislative Service Bureau, http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/ [state.ok.us]. Click the nifty underlined bit and it'll take you to the text of the entire body of Oklahoma statutes (I picked Oklahoma because it's a noted hotbed of tornado activity). "Reckless endangerment," by name or concept, didn't exist under Title 21, Crimes and Punishments, but Title 47, Motor Vehicles, contains "reckless driving:"

47 11 901. Reckless driving.A. It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a motor vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or property or in violation of the conditions outlined in Section 11 801 of this title.B. Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be punished upon a first conviction by imprisonment for a period of not less than five (5) days nor more than ninety (90) days, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment; on a second or subsequent conviction, punishment shall be imprisonment for not less than ten (10) days nor more than six (6) months, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Now, that makes true reckless driving a misdemeanor. However, you're arguing that driving in a place where one has every legal right to be becomes reckless driving simply because of inclement weather. The courts disagree. To wit:

Athey v. Bingham, 823 P.2d 347 (Okla. 1991). "Snow and sleet were falling on the ice-covered road. . . . The fact that a motor vehicle collision occurred does not necessarily raise the presumption that the defendant was following too closely, driving too fast to bring the car to a stop, or driving too fast for highway conditions." The Court did not even consider the idea that the driver shouldn't have been out in the weather at all.

Wade v. Reimer, 359 P.2d 1071 (Okla. 1961). "Shortly after they left [the city of] Yale it started raining hard and puddles of water began to accumulate on the surface of the highway. Defendant, driving at a speed estimated variously from 50 to 65 miles per hour, steered the vehicle so as to avoid these puddles. As they approached a point approximately 10 miles west of Yale, the two right wheels of the pick-up suddenly came off the pavement to the right shoulder of the road. The vehicle slid ‘sideways' back across the entire concrete width of the highway and then through the adjoining bar ditch crashing into a tree. . . . Before a driver may be found guilty of [reckless driving], the triers must necessarily conclude first that his actions amounted to ordinary common law negligence." The court held that even a guilty plea to reckless driving does not establish negligence per se; the jury still has to decide whether the specific actions were negligent. The jury did not find the defendant negligent. Again, the idea that "you shouldn't have been out in this weather" was never even considered, let alone seriously entertained by the Court.

So, if you'll bother to read the provided cases, I think you'll find that chasing tornadoes does not ipso factor constitute "reckless endangerment" (or even the actual crime of reckless driving), nor the tort of negligence. The specific circumstances of the case may give rise to an action in either, but it's not "the literal definition."

mad max got his ass reamed by channel 11 for it too (and if i remember right the faa), well more like a good stern hand slapping, mostly because he was in the news chopper owned by the station, which was probably what gannett was more concerned about. not that they didn't (and don't continue to, to this day) exploit the footage.

I always flinch when I see images of roads clogged with folks chasing a tornadic storm either just for the thrill or for the purposes of filming it - doing so is a Bad Idea and sooner or later is going to get some people (possibly a LOT of people) needlessly killed.

Professional scientific researchers have training, equipment and experience. They are fully aware of the danger the storm presents, and are risking it to perform scientific studies for the purpose of increasing human knowledge about these systems. They know what they're doing, they have things like mobile doppler radar to help them keep track of the situation, and aren't out there for cheap thrills.

People, you need to respect these storms. Sure, they produce awesome video. Great. Watch the Discovery show or the latest PBS special - don't go charging into the middle of danger! Does watching snake handlers on television make you want to go hunt up a rattler and start juggling it??? These storms are DANGEROUS. People DIE in these things, and cars are not a safe place to be. Particularly in heavy traffic.

Scientific study of these storms is a legitimate activity, and is more legitimate (and deserves precedence over) thrill seekers and people looking to make a cool home movie. If it comes down to it, maybe we should license storm chasers and fine anyone else who tries it - send some police cars along with the scientific teams. Make their special status explicit under the law, if that's what it takes, because people seeking knowledge to help make better warning systems are surely more important than cheap thrills for people with no common sense or survival instincts.

You make a salient larger point. There's a good deal of lack of respect for nature. Whether it be sailing around the world when you're 16, going to live with Grizzly's, or scaling the Himalayas; good old fashioned awe is at a long time low. Technology is the prime mover I guess in counting coup with a tornado. After the encounter you bring images and tales back to the BBQ and share them with your (now) world youtube tribe who anoints you with adulation and esteem. I've been close to a tornado whilst expose

Sorry, but a flood of Slashbots is going to respond and tell you "Storm-chasers have a RIGHT!" even though nobody is talking about rights. It doesn't matter to them that these scientists are trying to do government-funded, life-saving research because, apparently, morons with beer-hats and cell phone cameras are to be defended against those mean, ol' scientists trying to figure out how tornadoes work.

What this article fails to mention is one of the reasons Vortex2 even got a go was partially because of the success and semi-stardom Dr. Josh Wurman got from participating in "Storm Chasers".

The publicity that show generated for them no doubt helped lube the federal funding money chute.

Besides, you can't just declare martial law and saw "No one can storm chase". There's no solution that will ever be enacted that ends with making it illegal, so you may as well stop bitching about it and simply work with the other guys. I'm amazed there isn't a federal call center or something for these chasers to all phone in to, and a website with realtime dopplar radar provided to them. The faster these guys report a tornado on a ground, the easier it is for the weather people to push a button for a siren or some other event.

This just sounds like sour grapes. You could see the annoyance on the part of the "funded" scientist when that little no-name crew successfully flew a model airplane around a tornado and dropped sensors into it. The fact that was done on a budget put together by selling Tornado videos to news channels sounds like a win/win for me. Took none of my tax dollars, and reaped novel data.

---CUT---I'm amazed there isn't a federal call center or something for these chasers to all phone in to, and a website with realtime dopplar radar provided to them. The faster these guys report a tornado on a ground, the easier it is for the weather people to push a button for a siren or some other event.---CUT---

There is. SKYWARN is a program run by the NWS/NOAA, local law enforcement, and private citizens that lets anyone with some basic (really basic) meterological knowledge (what a wall cloud looks like, how to spot early rotation, etc) utilize an amateur radio to call in sightings of severe and tornadic weather using thier SKYWARN volunteer designator.

NWS will turn a tornado watch into a warning based solely on observer reports.

SKYWARN is a great program, IMO. BTW, most of those awesome tornado videos you see arent from scientists, they're from storm chasers and SKYWARN people.

I participate in SKYWARN as a licensed HAM operator and we are careful to not call ourselves chasers. We are trained spotters. We have gone through training to SPOT super cells and the classic warning signs of tornadoes. And yes, we are what trigger tornado watches and warnings through a direct line of communication with the NWS.

This just sounds like sour grapes. You could see the annoyance on the part of the "funded" scientist when that little no-name crew successfully flew a model airplane around a tornado and dropped sensors into it. The fact that was done on a budget put together by selling Tornado videos to news channels sounds like a win/win for me. Took none of my tax dollars, and reaped novel data.

I think you are seriously blurring the line better "serious amateur" and "asshat with his kids in the back of his pickup truck".

While I agree that banning storm chasing is stupid, there is a huge difference between someone with a thought-out (if unfunded) passion, and some yokel who sees a tornado on TV, and loads all his kids in the car on a whim.

Just because you have a "right" to be somewhere or do something, doesn't mean you should. Especially if your actions take away from others. And yes, I am saying that in the case of storm chasers, the guy with IMAX camera, or bad-ass RADAR is more special than you. Why? If those guys get a peek, everyone can benefit from it. If Cletus Q. Localhick drives the ol' F150 right into the tip of the funnel and takes some crappy iphone pictures, I don't see the payoff for the rest of humanity being as large. (Unless Darwin comes out to play)

These "amateurs" must learn to respect the almighty power and authority of Science and those that do it's works! They must not interfere with the great works of our Scientists for they operate under the authority of the power of Logic. Science damn these tornado chasing fools for their misaken ways!

I stopped reading the article when I read "Dr. Wurman said that amateur storm chasers rarely offer useful information"

It always bothers me when people with PhD's discount the information provided by amateurs. More than 1/2 the PhD's I have worked with tend to have a belief that if you do not have a degree in the subject you can not possibly provide any useful research data or that there is no way you can know what you are talking about.

If they are worried about the numbers of amateur storm chasers maybe they should have a conference with them and train them in proper data collection and where to report it. Then the people they think are "getting in the way" could be helpful and add to the body of scientific knowledge.

But then they would have to admit that anyone can do science and not just the PhD's. We can't have that, we have to pack the class rooms so they can get paid.

/me steps down from his soap box and kicks it back to the wall where his degrees hang.

Dr. Wurman said that amateur storm chasers rarely offer useful information. I'd hazard a guess that Dr. Wurman is incapable of installing a car stereo in his vehicle by himself, let alone the tons on equipment that they use to monitor storms. That would all be done by technicians, not PhD's. (The "Engineer of the Year" at the college I went to, with a major in Electronics Engineering, needed help to install a cheap car stereo in his car.)

I don't understand this anti-intellectual campaign. Is it so hard to understand that if you don't have a degree then chances are you don't know what you are talking about? I mean sure, it's quite possible to learn stuff on your own and investigate things on your spare time. Some even manage to get a decent grasp on a specific topic without ever having a course on it. Yet, when we look into it... how many uneducated know-it-alls do you know that really know nearly as much about a specific field than the educated person? And how many know-it-alls do you happen to know that boast how much they know about some stuff but, when we really delve into it, we find out they know jack shit?

I really don't understand this anti-intellectual nonsense. Since when does an uneducated, ignorant but strongly opinionated individual knows more about a subject than a publicly recognized expert on a subject who is recognized for making significant contributions to humanity's understanding of a specific subject?

I don't understand this anti-intellectual campaign. Is it so hard to understand that if you don't have a degree then chances are you don't know what you are talking about?

Actually the problem people have is with the arrogance and egotism of people who have pieces of paper. Simply because I don't have a piece of paper, doesn't mean I don't have a clue on how to plot my own weather maps and provide valid meteorological data to other sources. I can do both. But I've got no paper, but I have been studying weather since I was a kid. So 22 years give or take.

The interesting thing is, I can say the same about people in many scientific fields. The reality is, many academia believe that if you have a piece of paper your knowledge is more worthy then the guy who doesn't. Even if your paper is from another distant field that isn't related.

To sum it up, a 4 year education doesn't mean you have enough experience to understand more then the guy on the ground who's been doing it for 40 years without the same. You probably don't.

Actually the problem people have is with the arrogance and egotism of people who have pieces of paper. Simply because I don't have a piece of paper, doesn't mean I don't have a clue on how to plot my own weather maps and provide valid meteorological data to other sources. I can do both. But I've got no paper, but I have been studying weather since I was a kid. So 22 years give or take.

Congratulations, if that's true then you're one in a million. The other nine hundred, ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and

There is nothing anti-intellectual about the idea that a degree is only one of many ways a person could be knowledgeable or have something to contribute. There is nothing anti-intellectual about suggesting that the storm chasers should give the amateurs a way to participate meaningfully rather than just lamenting their existence.

Both of those ideas ARE strongly anti-elitist.

Sure, the world is full of blowhards who think they know everything about everything. Some of them have a degree and some don't.

I stopped reading the article when I read "Dr. Wurman said that amateur storm chasers rarely offer useful information"

So then you missed the part after that where he mentions that the amateurs typically haven't calibrated their instruments correctly AKA a pretty good reason to "discount the information provided by amateurs"?

If they are worried about the numbers of amateur storm chasers maybe they should have a conference with them and train them in proper data collection and where to report it. Then the people they think are "getting in the way" could be helpful and add to the body of scientific knowledge.

These people were unwilling to move their cars to let them by. Doubt they're going to show up to a lecture on "how to pull your car off the road." Besides: that's not their job.

The traffic jams due to too many people trying to get pictures of tornados, are only temporary. Within a year or two at the most, a tornado will turn toward the caravan of cars and trucks, and a lot of people will be killed. Very quickly after that, it will become common knowledge (again) that chasing a tornado is dangerous and foolish. Then, the majority of people will quit this foolishness, and stay out of the way.

I wonder if the professionals could use airplanes, or perhaps remotely piloted drones, fo

"These rank amateur egg-head academics are putting themselves and others in harm's way and causing unnecessary danger for the professionals whose job it is to cope with these storms. They have no business in the field and should stay out of the way."

Fire, Police, EMT first responders, 2000

"These rank amateur thrill-seeking rednecks are putting themselves and others in harm's way and causing unnecessary danger for the professionals whose job it is to cope with these storms. They have no business in the field

I rode with an organized storm chasing group for a couple of years. When I say organized, I mean there were meetings, committees, bylaws, a training program, certifications, schedules, and procedures. The group had its own commercial FM repeater, as well as being authorized to use a number of amateur radio repeaters, for communications. You didn't just show up and go storm chasing, you had to go through the training and orientation first.

Many times, members of the group called in weather reports that resulted in warnings being issued. It was a standing requirement that we attend yearly spotter training courses from the National Weather Service, and many members of the group did have an interest in the science behind the storms. Many people in the group had a genuine interest in doing something for the public good.

However, many *others* in the group were deeply caught up in the whole thing; they'd take any opportunity to criticize the forecasters at the local National Weather Service office, the weather guy on TV, and local emergency management officials. They'd never pass up a chance to be interviewed, especially on television. It was common at meetings to watch storm chasing video, often of people doing 95 down some two lane highway, shooting video while driving. People would talk in the same breath about how much the group was needed, respected, and adored by local government officials.

I eventually left the group, because the training and certifications and all that were meaningless. While there were some genuinely interested people in the group, the people who founded and ran the group really were in it for the adrenaline, and the glory, and the TV footage, and the science was only included as a means to get better video. No one from the group went to school to study atmospheric sciences, or even took classes.

If storm chasers are getting a bad reputation, it's because they've earned it. It may be just a few bad apples, but enough of the sorta good apples follow the bad ones down the highway.

You can be a storm spotter, trained or not, on your front porch. You're likely to do more good doing that, than wasting fuel and polluting the air driving 150 miles across Nebraska in the rain.

Agreed, the scientists started somewhere, just because the "amateurs" aren't being compensated and don't have a million dollar chase vehicle doesn't mean they have any less right to follow the storms - fuck off.

It doesn't matter, the roads are public and this is America. Just because they have a PHD doesn't suddenly give them more rights than anyone else. As long as the police don't tell them to leave (and talking to cop friends after Twister came out they think BOTH the scientists and storm chasers are fucking nuts) then the scientists can just learn to deal or go somewhere else.

Welcome to America, where public is public and we ALL have the right to use the roads, even in times of emergency. And what if I am g

Sure, everyone's got a right to the road. Thing is these amateurs are getting in the way of people who are trying to study this shit so we can better understand and so better prepare and warn people of disaster.

In other words, the amateurs have their heads up their asses. Yeah, they have as much right as the PhDs to be there, but what they SHOULD do, were they decent people, is concede that people other than themselves are better able to do better work and that because of this they should allow them better access.

If someone's choking to death, only an asshole would stand in the way of trained paramedics and claim that they have just as much right to stand there as the paramedic. That's a thin analogy but still works -- get the hell out of the way of the professionals, they know what they're doing more than you do.

Morons with beer hats paved the way precisely because they were moronic enough to start chasing twisters long before the dudes in white coats figured it was a legitimate scientific endeavor worthy of their time and reputation.

See rocketry, flight etc. Not that the Wright brothers were "moronic". But the point I'm trying to make is that almost any field *becomes* a "science" only after someone with no knowledge explores it enough to establish some information that the science types can then study and then become scientists in the field.

So, in essence, curiosity and the sheer determination to explore something in the face of ridicule - something a proper modern "scientist" rarely would risk their reputation for - is something, most of the time, is better done by amateurs. Which becomes the foundation for the science that then follows. So, at least in my mind, the amateurs are discoverers of science. The "scientists" just study the science.

For the scientist to claim that they are the ones doing important work - f that. The most important work was done when someone decided to chase the storm just for the hell of it.

And wasn't curiosity an essential part of science?

If an amateur develops a safer way to get closer to the storm - is that development any less scientific?

And please don't forget, the scientists and the doctors - if "life-saving" is the only dimension of human endeavor - have all failed miserably: every single human being dies.

Better yet, equip all these yahoos with some basic monitoring equipment to record information for you. It wouldn't be the first time scientists have used a network of enthusiastic amateurs for a legitimate scientific endeavor.

I doubt that many of these folk will become scientists.Why they have the right to be stupid let's be honest.1. This is a dangerous activity.2. They have caused issues with scientists trying to do proper data collection.3. They could cause problems for first responders trying to help people.So yes the have the right but is it ethical or even morally right to get in the way of real scientists?I would say that most of these folk should get the heck off the rode and let the professionals have their crack at getting real data that might actually end up helping people.Otherwise they are just using their right to be dumb jerks to hurt the advancement of science for in exchange for some thrill seeking.

Lets see.. maybe because storm chasers have been doing it for far longer than scientists (on the order of many many decades), and have it down to a fine art. They have contributed greatly to our understanding of severe thunderstorm dynamics, more than most scientists have, Im afraid. Im talking about real storm chasers here, the ones that know a thing or two about atmospheric physics, reading the weather signs, and taking appropriate action. Scientists, seeing their success, are now jumping on the bandwagon

But let's be honest.The real storm chasers are probably not the problem. It the people that watched Stormchasers on TV and think it looks like fun.Also so what if the scientists have jumped onto the bandwagon? Are they doing real science that helps people? Then it is a good thing.

And they are not claiming the roads or the storms. They are asking people to not get in their way or endanger them while they are collecting data.Seems all too reasonable to me.

You do realize that most of those successful storm chasers you are talking about are scientists who chase as a "hobby"? Where I work, if there is a good chance for tornadoes in the state, good luck finding a professor or graduate student as many of them are out chasing for fun (and learning). Many discoveries on how tornadoes work happened during these "chase days" by scientists watching what they love (e.g. - Markowski and Bluestein are two names off the top of my head).

I don't think you know what a scientist is. Scientists are not 'just those people who have degrees and write papers'. A scientist is ANY PERSON who follows the scientific method taking observations to test hypotheses. So get off your high horse about 'real' scientists, 'real' data, etc. Without self-motivated, self-educated people like Benjamin Franklin, we would be deprived of many inventions and scientific advancements.

Guess what?In science you are not worth anything unless you have paid your dues.Simple truth.Now those dues don't have to be sitting in a classroom.But those dues MUST include study and following real scientific methods.All scientists worth anything pay those does. Including great amateur scientists.If you don't pay those dues are nothing but a rank armature.

You know, I'll bet those guys with their fancy PhD's don't even know that research is redundant! Isn't that silly- guess all that 'book learning' ain't good fer nuthin' after all haw haw! Prolly out there, thinkin' they're gonna save some lives! Pshaw! Icebike knows better, an' that's a FACT!

The point is that the roads are not the property of the scientists. They might just as well complain about people trying to avoid the storm by using the roads. Perhaps the scientists are interfering with proper public escape routes.

Why assume anyone out on the roads are random idiots?Many are film makers producing documentary TV shows.Some are probably competing scientists.

Those people have the right to use the road, but that doesn't give them the right to recklessly block the road from being used by others, especially if that use is to escape from a life-threatening situation. At that point they become as much of a reckless driver as someone texting while driving or going excessively fast.